Jonathan Capehart of the Washington Post recently reported on Defense Secretary Robert Gates' contention in a speech at Duke University that war has become an "abstraction" to most Americans, since only a handful have a personal stake in the conflict.
Secretary Gates' argument that those who support going to war would be more sensitive to the decision if they thought the fighting force included the affluent could be accurate, but did not go far enough. I still believe, as I did in 2003 when I first proposed reinstating the military draft, that decision-makers in the U.S. Congress, and elsewhere, would never have supported an invasion of Iraq if their own children had been subject to service in the invading force.
Secretary Gates pointed out that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are being fought with less than 2.4 million troops in uniform -- one percent of the country's population of 300 million -- the smallest percentage for any of the nation's wars. Further, he said, the campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan are the first "protracted, large-scale conflicts since our Revolutionary War fought entirely by volunteers."
Without saying it, the secretary was suggesting we are creating a warrior class of Americans whom we salute with welcome-home parades, but otherwise ignore.
Our soldiers, increasingly, are the young men and women from economically-depressed small towns and inner cities who are vigorously recruited with generous enlistment bonuses and education benefits. They are the long-term enlisted soldiers who now comprise 50 percent of the force, are subjected to multiple deployments, and are more likely to return home stricken with post-traumatic stress disorder and brain injuries.
Our combat veterans are more and more becoming victims of a virtual epidemic of alcoholism, drug addiction, and suicides. With their families in turmoil, divorce is on the rise. And once separated from the military, veterans are jobless at twice the national rate.
Secretary Gates' sympathy for his soldiers rings clear throughout his statement. He predicts that "drawing down" in Iraq and "transition next year" in Afghanistan should "reduce this stress [of multiple deployments] over time." Yet, all he is left with is the question: "How long can these brave and broad young shoulders carry the burden?"
I agree with the secretary that returning ROTC programs to elite colleges won't change the composition of our armed forces. In fact, it's clear to me that no one should expect college students at a handful of campuses to reverse the moral failure of the country to ask all of its citizens to share the burden of warfare.
As long as the national leadership -- whether political, civic, religious, or business -- are unwilling to place their own family members in harm's way, then no one will. As long as the government spends more time arguing who should benefit from trillion-dollar tax cuts while our brave soldiers continue to make the ultimate sacrifice, I wouldn't expect anyone to care much about who's shouldering the burden in Iraq and Afghanistan.